Abstract
Various debates and contradictions characterise the life and fiction of Sir Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul. While many critics view Naipaul as a prominent figure who perpetuates colonial narratives through his literary oeuvre, this article proposes an alternative perspective, particularly in the context of Miguel Street. To deviate from the lens of colonial racism and clich & eacute;s, this article employs Kenneth Burke's concept of "perspective by incongruity" as an alternative reading of the text. In so doing, Miguel Street is thus interpreted as a collection of short stories that unveil the coloniality of existence within Trinidad's flawed modernity. Perspective by incongruity is a rhetorical resource that unmasks coloniality's inhumanity by subverting and challenging known pieties in the novel. This article demonstrates how Naipaul uses character portrayals to shock the audience to the tragedy of humanity under coloniality, thus connecting the text to broader social and political realities. Arguably, the success of Miguel Street lies in violating the audience's expectations and introducing ambiguity into their perceptions. Naipaul inadvertently assumes the metaphorical role of an evangelist who asks the audience to alter their orientations and give them new meanings. As such, the article examines Burke's rhetorical tool of perspective by incongruity as an alternative lens in interpreting the short stories without seeking to sanitise Naipaul's debatable legacy.